Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/resources/{id}' which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but it doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read operation, what permissions might be required, or what happens on failure. The '(Legacy)' tag suggests potential deprecation concerns, but this isn't explained. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal behavioral information is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is technically concise (two brief phrases), but this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified. The first phrase 'Show resource' is redundant with the tool name, while the bracketed technical details provide some value but aren't structured for clarity. The description isn't wasteful, but it's also not effectively front-loaded with the most important information for an AI agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's apparent purpose (retrieving a resource by ID with pagination options), the absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain what gets returned. The description provides neither return value information nor context about what a 'resource' represents in this system. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to properly use and interpret results from this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page) having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none in the schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Show resource' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds minimal clarity beyond the name itself. The bracketed text '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] GET /rest/v1.0/resources/{id}' provides some technical context but doesn't articulate what 'showing a resource' actually means or what type of resource is involved. Compared to sibling tools like 'show_a_budgeted_production_quantity' or 'show_a_crew' that specify their target resources, this description lacks specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides zero guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or relationships to other tools. Given the extensive list of sibling tools (over 1000 entries), including many other 'show_' tools for specific resources, the absence of any differentiation guidance is a critical omission that leaves the agent guessing about when this generic 'show_resource' is appropriate versus more specific alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.